THE MOST COMMON WORDS IN ENGLISH The 500 Most Commonly Used Words in the English Language Based on the combined results of British English, American English and Australian English surveys of contemporary sources in English: newspapers, magazines, books, TV, radio and real life conversations - the language as it is written and spoken today. The 300 Most Common Words The 300 Most Common Words These are the words that are the most common words students find in reading, and writing, and need to learn how to spell. The first 100 words make up 50% of all written material. All 300 common words make up 65% of all written material. These words are listed, going down, according to frequency of use. Children see them over and over again in their beginning stories and they learn them using "beginning sounds" and simple phonetic clues along with context. Students should be able to recognize these words instantly for reading fluency and be able to spell them rapidly and correctly for writing fluency by the third grade. Keep in mind that there are common suffixes for many of the words. Such as: y, ed, ly, er, ing, est, es, and s.

Transition Words and Phrases We can go to the beach, or we can go to the mountains. You can either ride the bus or walk to my apartment. I like neither that person nor his brother. Punctuation Rules Coordinating Conjunctions (and, but, or, yet, so): Put a comma before these conjunctions. (Don't use them at the beginning of a sentence in more formal writing.) example: The movie has already started, but my friend has not arrived yet. Correlative Conjunctions (These have two parts: either . . . or): Put a comma before the second part if it connects 2 clauses (complete sentences). example: Eric is not only an outstanding teacher, but he is also a gourmet cook. You don't need a comma if it only connects words or phrases. example: Eric is not only an outstanding teacher but also a gourmet cook. Transitional Words and Phrases: Put a comma after these if they are at the beginning of a sentence. example: I like to travel. Specifically, I enjoy places with old cathedrals. Use a semicolon to connect the two sentences. example: I like to travel; specifically, I enjoy places with old cathedrals.

Use a comma before and after the transitional word/phrase in the middle of a clause. example: I like to travel, and, specifically, I enjoy places with old cathedrals. The | Define The at Dictionary.com definite article 1. (used, especially before a noun, with a specifying or particularizing effect, as opposed to the indefinite or generalizing force of the indefinite article a or an): the book you gave me; Come into the house. 2. (used to mark a proper noun, natural phenomenon, ship, building, time, point of the compass, branch of endeavor, or field of study as something well-known or unique): the sun; the Alps; the Queen Elizabeth; the past; the West. 3. (used with or as part of a title): the Duke of Wellington; the Reverend John Smith. 4. (used to mark a noun as indicating the best-known, most approved, most important, most satisfying, etc.): the skiing center of the U.S.; If you're going to work hard, now is the time. 5. (used to mark a noun as being used generically): The dog is a quadruped. 6.

(used in place of a possessive pronoun, to note a part of the body or a personal belonging): He won't be able to play football until the leg mends. 7. (used before adjectives that are used substantively, to note an individual, a class or number of individuals, or an abstract idea): to visit the sick; from the sublime to the ridiculous. 8. (used before a modifying adjective to specify or limit its modifying effect): He took the wrong road and drove miles out of his way. 9. (used to indicate one particular decade of a lifetime or of a century): the sixties; the Gay Nineties. 10. (one of many of a class or type, as of a manufactured item, as opposed to an individual one): Did you listen to the radio last night? 11. enough: He saved until he had the money for a new car. She didn't have the courage to leave. 12. (used distributively, to note any one separately) for, to, or in each; a or an: at one dollar the pound. Origin of the1 adverb 1.

(used to modify an adjective or adverb in the comparative degree and to signify “in or by that,” “on that account,” “in or by so much,” or “in some or any degree”): He's been on vacation and looks the better for it. 2. (used in correlative constructions to modify an adjective or adverb in the comparative degree, in one instance with relative force and in the other with demonstrative force, and signifying “by how much … by so much” or “in what degree … in that degree”): the more the merrier; The bigger they are, the harder they fall. Origin Expand Signal Words Back to comp 5 Back to Grammar 4 Signal Words In order to be able to lead your reader in the direction you want to go, you will have to use strong transitions in your writing. You can do that in several ways: by using entire sentences to connect one thought to another, entire paragraphs to give more background information, or simply a word or two to indicate your intentions. This list of signals is from The New Reading Teacher's Book of Lists, 1985 Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632. By E.

Fry, D. Fountoukidis, and J. Polk. 1. Continuation Signals (Warningï¿½there are more ideas to come): and A Short List of Film Terms for B A Short List of Film Terms for Beginning Students in Film Courses By David T. Johnson, Salisbury University Part of being a good film student is knowing the language of film. Here is a very brief introduction to some of the most common terms you will run across in the classroom. It is by no means comprehensive; nonetheless, it should give you some basic terms to use when speaking and writing about film. For many of you, this list will be review, but in everyone’s case, be sure to clarify any terms that you find confusing, as you will be expected to use terms, when appropriate, in your film courses here at Salisbury. A few of these terms come from literary analysis and from the theater, but most are specific to film. narrative - An adjective describing a film as being primarily a work of fiction, or a noun that loosely means a fictional story. documentary - Also an adjective or noun category used to describe a work of nonfiction. plot - refers to all aspects of the narrative that we see on screen.

For example, in the film Jaws, Chief Brody’s talking to the town council on screen would be part of the plot. story - refers to all aspects of the narrative that we do not see on screen; these aspects may include events before, during, or even after the plot of the film. In Jaws, for instance, Chief Brody had been a police officer in the city prior to the film’s beginning; this information is part of the story but not part of the plot. diegesis - refers to the narrative that we see on screen. This term is much more specific to film, however, and refers to the world that the characters inhabit as much as the plot of the film. The adjectivediegetic, for instance, refers to something the characters in the film could perceive, whereas nondiegetic refers to something they could not (see diegetic and nondiegetic sound below). point of view - Most people assume film always has a third-person perspective, but even when it does not use a POV shot (see below), film often has a more subjective perspective through the use of camera placement, voiceover, and other cinema techniques.

mise-en-scène - refers to everything in the frame of the film, which would include lighting, set, props, and the staging and movement of actors. The term derives from the theater, where it is used in a similar way. In the 1950s, a group of French critics at the journal Cahiers du Cinéma used this term in a different way. For them, mise-en-scène meant a special aspect of cinema associated with certain directors. Eventually, you will want to understand both meanings of the term, since this secondary meaning is closely connected to the idea of auteurism in cinema.. Initially, however, use mise-en-scène in the first sense. setting - like the literary term, this word refers to the time and place of the film. The setting for The Usual Suspects, for instance, is New York and Los Angeles at a time contemporary with the film’s year of release (in this case, 1995). set - This term refers to the actual construction in which the actors are filmed. In The Usual Suspects, for instance, a set might be the interrogation room in the film.

Sets are usually built for a film, as opposed to shooting on location, where a scene is shot in the actual place in which it occurs in the film. If a film crew shot on location in Venice, Italy, for instance, they might actually be shooting the scene in gondolas on the canals. Set is also used generally, however, as a designation for the place where a film is being shot. (So even in location shooting, the director would be “on the set” of his or her film every time he or she went to the place where the crew was shooting for that day.) prop - another term borrowed from theater. A prop is generally any object on a set, though clearly the objects that characters will touch become more important. A trumpet, for instance, might be part of the backdrop in a music store scene, but if a character is going to play the trumpet, the prop takes on more importance. costumes - what the characters are wearing. Bear in mind that even if a character is wearing contemporary clothing (in some cases, the actors’ own clothing), that clothing is still considered a costume. lighting - This term refers to the way in which lights are used for a given film.

Lighting, in conjunction with the camera, sets the visual look for a film. The key light is the main light used for a scene; back light refers to a secondary source, usually placed behind the actors; and fill refers to a light placed to the side of the actors. This system is called three-point lighting and was very common in classical Hollywood films. You may also run across the term low-key lighting, which means that the film was shot often using only the key light at a very low setting. This low level of lighting creates dark shadows on the faces of actors and is particularly moody when used with black-and-white film. It is most often associated with film noir but is not exclusive to that genre. shot (and close-up v. long shot) - generally, the smallest unit of unbroken film. The camera can move within a shot, but the second that the film makes a transition (see below) to another shot, the previous shot has ended. Alternatively, when used with certain adjectives, shot also refers to the distance from the camera to the subject, almost always the actor.

In a long shot (or a wide shot), one can see the entire body of the actor; in a medium shot, one can see the actor from the waist up; in a close-up, one can see only the actor’s face (there is no such term as the “short shot”). You might also see an extreme close-upin a film, where you can only see part of the actor’s face (just the eyes, for example). Also, another common term is the two-shot, which is generally a medium to medium-long shot of two actors; two-shots were very common in the classical Hollywood era and continue to be used today. pan - the movement of a stationary camera on a horizontal axis. A camera on a tripod that moves from left to right (following a parade, for instance), would be panning. tilt - the movement of a stationary camera on a vertical axis. A camera on a tripod that moves up and down (following a plane landing, for instance), would be performing a tilt. tracking shot - the movement of the shot when the camera is no longer stationary. The term refers to the tracks that cameras were once rolled on when creating one of these shots.

Although tracks are still often used with a tracking shot, the term might also refer more generally to a moving shot that appears stable, such as a steadicam shot, which uses a gyroscope to avoid the shaky effects associated with hand-held shots. You may also run across the term dolly shot, which refers to what the camera rests on (a platform with wheels) while the camera moves in certain kinds of shots. Dolly shot is sometimes used interchangeably with tracking shot, since dollies very often use tracks. handheld shot - refers to a shot where the camera is held by the camera operator. Hand-held shots are often associated with a certain look, which is shaky, and most people associate the hand-held shot with a kind of documentary realism. Narrative films and television often use the hand-held for this reason, as they are able to create a sense of gritty realism. The television show Law and Order, for instance, often uses hand-held shots when the detectives are questioning suspects on the streets, giving the viewer the sense that the scene is more real. Bear in mind, however, that no one technique ever has the same meaning in every film (a handheld shot might be used to decrease the sense of realism).

crane shot - A shot taken from a crane. You often see these shots at the beginning of a scene (using it as an establishing shot) or the end of a scene. The end of a movie, in fact, often uses a crane shot (though sometimes is even more extreme). POV shot - stands for “Point of View” shot. This type of shot does not refer to the technology used so much as the way we interpret it. In this kind of shot, we are looking through the eyes of a character; you have probably seen a POV shot when a character who has been rendered unconscious is waking (the other characters look directly into the camera, in a low-angle shot (see below), and say “Are you okay?” as the edges of the frame are blurred and the speech has an echo effect). high-angle shot, low-angle shot - These terms refer to camera placement. If a camera is looking down on an actor from a high vantage, it is a high-angle shot; if a camera is placed very low to the ground and looks “up” at actors, it is a low-angle shot.

High-angle shots might emphasize that characters are being overwhelmed by their circumstances, while low-angle shots might emphasize that characters are somehow larger than life. Be very careful, however, when attaching a certain cinema technique to a recurring plot device or tone. There are always exceptions, and you need to evaluate every scene individually. take (and short v. long take) - generally, a take refers to the time a shot is begun to the time it stops. On a film set, a director might have to go through several takes before settling on the shot he or she wants (you have probably seen this in films before, with the clapboard and someone shouting “Take 12”--meaning they have done this shot eleven times before this one). Alternatively, like shot, take also takes on a secondary meaning when combined with certain adjectives (in this case, long and short), except that a long or short take refers to time, whereas a long shot or close-up refers to distance. A short take, for instance, might be one or two seconds long, although contemporary films continue to use shorter and shorter takes of less than a single second (making two or three seconds, which sounds like a short amount of time, not very short at all).

A long take would refer to a single unbroken shot that lasts for a larger amount of time--thirty seconds, for instance. One extreme recent example of a long take would be Russian Ark, a film shot on digital video and using a single, very long take for the entire film. Another more extreme example would be Alfred Hitchcock’s Rope, where the director used long takes of several minutes apiece and attempted to hide the cuts by tracking behind characters’ backs or pieces of furniture. Some directors are also famous for the use of long takes, such as Jean Renoir and Orson Welles. frame – Literally, a frame of film refers to the smallest unit of film possible. Film frames appear on a film strip, which, when projected, creates the illusion of motion. Film is shown at 24 frames per second (or f.p.s., a common abbreviation). In a much looser sense, scholars sometimes talk about the frame to mean the four sides of the film as it is being projected, and they also often use it as a verb (e.g.

“The film framesthe action in such a way that we can see both characters at once.”) screen - often used with on or off to refer to what we see within the frame. On-screen action, for instance, is something we can see, whereas off-screen action might be something we hear but which takes place outside the frame. Screen also refers to the actual physical screen on which we project a film. shallow/soft focus - refers to how much of the shot is in focus. With shallow or soft focus, generally we can only see the actor’s face in focus. The background appears blurry. This kind of focus was common in Classic Hollywood and is still common, because if the viewer cannot see the background, then the director does not need to light the background, for instance, or make sure the background is perfectly ordered. Also, a blurry background focuses our attention all the more on what is in focus, which is generally the actor’s face. Shallow focus is achieved with a long lens (this can be confusing, since one would assume a shallow focus would require a short lens). deep focus - refers to a shot in which everything, including the background, is in focus.

This type of shot is much more difficult to achieve, since the entire set must be adequately lit, designed, etc. Also, the danger is that the viewer’s attention will shift from subject to backdrop, but some directors use this “danger” to their advantage. William Wyler, for instance, in The Best Years of Our Lives, shows a man playing a piano in the foreground while another man in the background calls his girlfriend (the first man’s daughter) to break things off. Without deep focus, this shot would be impossible. Directors Jean Renoir and Orson Welles are most often associated with deep focus, which sometimes (but does not always) accompany long takes and a moving camera (since everything is lit, the camera is much more able to move fluidly and reposition itself among actors and props). rack focus - Shifting the focus from one object to another within a single shot. Sometimes, directors will use a rack focus when two characters are on screen at once but are positioned at different distances from the camera. editing - refers to the way that individual shots are connected to one another to make the film. montage - this word has two meanings.

First, montage can simply be another word for editing, which is often the way you will see it in film theory or when we study the Soviet filmmakers of the early twentieth century. Second, and more commonly in contemporary usage, montage refers to a series of shots edited together to show a longer activity evolving in a shorter amount of time or to show a series of related activities. A sports film, for instance, might have a training montage, where the character becomes much better at the sport (the film might condense three months of training, for instance, into a two-minute montage of jogging, lifting weights, etc.). Or a film might show a series of related activities through montage. For instance, a film about a news station might have a montage of the evening news preparing to air (with shots of make-up being applied to the anchors’ faces, cameras being moved into position, producers arguing over a story, and other images and sounds we might associate with this scene). transition - refers to the way a shot moves from one to the next. Films use several different kinds of transitions, including: cut - simply splicing one shot to the next. The most common kind of transitions, cuts are used extensively in editing.

dissolve - when one shot “bleeds” into another. In other words, the end of the first shot is still visible as the second shot becomes visible. Dissolves are often (but not always) used to show a smaller amount of time passing than a fade in or fade out. fade in, fade out - Going from black (nothing on the screen) to a shot (fade in), or going from a shot to black (fade out). These transitions usually (but not always) connote a larger amount of time passing or might also be used to signal a break in the narrative (the end of an act, for instance). wipe - one shot “wipes” across the screen and replaces another. You do not see wipes used overly often in contemporary films, although some directors use them often (the Star Wars films use wipes consistently). iris-in, iris-out - this transition almost never appears in contemporary films and was used much more commonly in early cinema. Here, the shot goes from a full frame to focusing a small circle around a certain part of the shot, with everything else blacked out (the iris-in), or the reverse occurs (the iris-out).

You may have seen this transition at the end of a Looney Tunes cartoon, when the cartoon character will sometimes poke his or her head out of the iris as it closes in and crack one last joke (e.g when Porky Pig says, “Tha-tha-tha, that’s all folks”). scene - a series of shots that form a cohesive unit of narrative. For instance, in Rear Window, we might discuss the scene where Grace Kelly kids Jimmy Stewart about not marrying her yet. Films have both acts and scenes, like theater, although they are often less obvious because there are rarely intermissions or accompanying programs in film. Screenwriters typically use acts when writing a film. Scholars, however, almost never discuss an act of a film, whereas scene is used extensively. continuity editing - also called invisible editing or Classic Hollywood editing. This system of editing is the system that Classic Hollywood established (though it had been in use before that period) and is essentially the system that exists today. Understanding this system is crucial to understanding cinema, since even those directors who break with this system are in a sense defining themselves against it. This system is associated with the following other terms: establishing shot - This term has two meanings.

In one context, establishing shot refers to the shot at a beginning of a film or scene that established location. For instance, if the setting of a film is 1940s Occupied France, the film might open with a shot of the Eiffel Tower with two Gestapo soldiers in the foreground. This shot establishes place (and sometimes, as in this example, time). Establishing shot is also used in continuity editing to describe a shot that establishes the spatial relationships in a given scene. shot/reverse shot - After an establishing shot, the shot-reverse shot refers to the close-ups used when two characters are in conversation. (Because we have already used an establishing shot, we now know where the characters are in relation to one another.) match-on-action - connects two shots cut together by having a character finish an action in the second shot begun in the first shot. For instance, if a character lights a match in the first shot, the same character will draw it up to a cigarette in the second. eyeline match - The directions that actors look affect the way we perceive their spatial relationships to one another. Eyeline matches are important for establishing who a character is talking to or what a character is looking at.

For instance, if a character is talking to two people on either side of him or her, then the character will look to the left of the camera to connote that he or she is talking to the person in that direction. the 180-degree rule - This term refers to the rule that once a spatial relationship has been confirmed with the establishing shot, no close-up will cross the imaginary line drawn between those two actors until a new line (or axis) has been established, usually through another establishing shot. zoom-in, zoom-out - using certain lenses, the camera can move more closely into a subject (the zoom-in) or pull back (the zoom-out). The zoom-in is sometimes called a push-in, and the zoom-out is sometimes called the pull-back. sound - everything we hear from the audio track of the film. music - any music that comes from the audio track. Music might be diegetic (a song on the radio of a car a character is driving) or nondiegetic (scary music when a villain appears on screen). diegetic sound - sound that other characters would be able to hear.

A song on a radio, for instance, as a character drives down the highway, would be a diegetic sound, as would someone coughing audibly during a scene. It is important to note that diegetic sound is a sound that characters could hear, even if they are not present when that sound occurs. The sound of a radio playing in an apartment, for instance, is a diegetic sound, even if no character is present in the apartment during the scene. nondiegetic sound - sound that characters cannot hear. The two most common types of nondiegetic sound are voiceovers, which is a character’s narration that plays over any given scene, and nondiegetic music, which is music used to inflect the mood of a given scene. Creepy horror-movie music, for instance, that plays when a character is walking into an old house, is nondiegetic music, since that character cannot hear the music.

Sometimes, this effect is parodied (with characters commenting on the scary music playing), and some directors will transition from a nondiegetic sound to a diegetic sound (or vice-versa), as when a song is playing on a radio that then becomes the nondiegetic music even as the characters move into a new scene without the radio in it. ambient sound - This term generally refers to any sounds that are used to establish location. The ambient sound of a scene in a park, for instance, might include birds chirping, children laughing, or a dog barking. The ambient sound of a train station would include the whine of train brakes, the tinny sounds of arrival and departure announcements, and the general noise of people walking and talking. Further Reading: Many books on film have a glossary that defines these terms and others at greater length. Here are some other sources, some of which are available at our library. Even if they are not, however, you should ask your librarian about interlibrary loans, which would allow you to procure most, if not all of these titles (if you are not already using them with a course you are currently enrolled in): Bordwell, David, and Kristin Thompson. Film Art: An Introduction.

Bordwell and Thompson’s study is a classic book on formal aspects of film. See especially their explanations of continuity editing. Cook, David A. A History of Narrative Film. If you are enrolled in a film history course at Salisbury University, you may already be using this book in your course. Cook’s book provides an insightful history of the cinema and also contains a glossary. Corrigan, Timothy. A Short Guide to Writing About Film. Corrigan’s text is very useful for students who want to improve their writing about cinema. It also includes a glossary. Hayward, Susan. Cinema Studies: The Key Concepts. Hayward’s book is centered less on technical vocabulary and more on theoretical and conceptual terms. It provides excellent explanations of those concepts, however, and supplements explanations with recommendations on further reading. It would be useful for students reading essays who run across theoretical jargon with which they are unfamiliar. Top Ten Internet Languages - World Internet Statistics 100.0 % 7,340,093,980 NOTES: (1) Top Ten Languages Internet Stats were updated for June 30 2016.

(2) Internet Penetration is the ratio between the sum of Internet users speaking a language and the total population estimate that speaks that specific language. (3) The most recent Internet usage information comes from data published by Nielsen Online , International Telecommunications Union , GfK , and other reliable sources. (4) World population information comes mainly from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Eurostats . (5) For definitions, methodology and navigation help, please see the Site Surfing Guide . (6) These statistics may be cited, stating the source and establishing an active link back to Internet World Stats . Copyright © 2016, Miniwatts Marketing Group. All rights reserved worldwide. Examples for interpretation of the data: - There are 277,125,947 Spanish speaking people using the Internet, this represents 7.7 % of all the Internet users in the world. - Out of the estimated 94,973,855 persons in the world that speak German, 88.3 % use the Internet. - The number of Japanese Speaking Internet Users has grown 144.5 % in the last sixteen years (2000-2016).

Tallying the number of speakers of the world's languages is an increasingly complex task, particularly with the push in many countries to teach English in their public schools. How many people can actually use the global language? David Graddol estimated a total of 750 million L1 (first or native language) plus L2 (second or nth language) speakers of English in his Future of English Report (pdf document) for the British Council. One of our subscribers, Prof. Martin Schell, has reviewed Prof. Braj Kachru's new book Asian Englishes which claims that India and China combined have over half a billion "users" of English. Indeed, many people are bilingual or multilingual, but here we assign only one language per person in order to have all the language totals add up to the total world population (zero-sum approach). No adjustments have been made for infants or illiteracy in the Internet penetration rate calculations. Very few countries have 100% literacy. Australia, Denmark, Finland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg and Norway are six countries to mention. Regarding children, most are early Internet adopters (when and where children are given the chance to use a computer to surf the Web).

Another very interesting fact is that the six official languages of the United Nations (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish) are all included in the above Top Ten Internet languages table. Internet ICT Telecommunications Reports The Conspiracy Behind the New Bible Translations | Bible.org The Conspiracy Behind the New Bible Translations Related Media This is the first in a series of occasional short essays from the “Professor’s Soap Box.” It is not intended to be a detailed exposition; rather, it is meant to give you food for thought and to challenge some popular ideas. Introduction The first major English translation of the Bible to appear since the King James (1611) was the Revised Version of 1881. Since then, numerous English translations have sprung up, almost all of which have used a different textual basis from the one found in the KJV. This difference is especially seen in the New Testament. Simultaneously published with the RV was the Greek text of Westcott and Hort, two Cambridge scholars. This Greek text had been in the works for 28 years, coming to light on May 12, 1881. It was accompanied by an introductory volume, which gave the rationale for the choices made.

Westcott and Hort were able to convince the vast majority of New Testament scholars of the truth of their textual choices. Essentially, they argued that the Greek text behind the KJV NT was inferior and late. Of course, as is well known, the Greek text used in 1611 was for the most part based on about half a dozen very late manuscripts (none earlier than the 12th century AD). These manuscripts were used by Erasmus in 1516 when he published the first Greek NT. 1 (We’ll discuss this point more in a later essay.) But these few manuscripts (MSS) came from a much larger pool. In fact, for the most part they looked very much like the majority of Greek MSS of the medieval ages. But Westcott and Hort (WH) said that this majority text was late and inferior. They preferred the five great uncial MSS (known by their letters, Aleph, A, B, C, D), all of which dated from the fourth or fifth century, as well as early versional and patristic evidence. Two MSS in particular, B and Aleph, were favorites of WH. Both came from the fourth century.

How did WH dethrone the Textus Receptus and the Greek MSS that stood behind it? They accomplished their task with three arguments: (1) The Byzantine text (i.e., the group of Greek MSS behind the Textus Receptus) was not quoted by any church father before AD 325, while the Alexandrian text was amply represented before that period. (2) The Byzantine text was shown to depend on two earlier traditions, the Alexandrian and Western, in several places. The early editors of the Byzantine text combined (or conflated) the wording of the Alexandrian and Western traditions on occasion, while nowhere could it be shown that the Alexandrian combined Western and Byzantine readings or that the Western combined readings of the Alexandrian and Byzantine. (3) The Byzantine text, upon closer examination, proved to be inferior in its wording, either by not conforming to the author’s wording or moving in a predictable direction (such as by adding clarifying words). Thus, with these three arguments, WH demonstrated that the Byzantine text was late (the patristic argument), secondary (the conflation argument), and inferior (the internal evidence argument).

Although some of the particulars of their overall view have been questioned today, most NT scholars find this general scheme to be a compelling argument against Byzantine superiority. Hence, the overthrow of the Textus Receptus. Conspiracy or Evidence? What, then, has motivated the vast majority of NT scholars to embrace the earliest MSS as better representing the original wording of the NT? In a word, evidence. WH’s argument was solid. Interestingly, in WH’s day only one NT papyrus fragment was known. Now, almost 100 have been discovered. These antedate the great uncials by as much as two hundred years! What is most significant about them is that not one is Byzantine. But if the Byzantine text was the original, why did it not show up in either patristic evidence or MS evidence until much later? In fact, for Paul’s letters, the earliest Byzantine MSS belong to the ninth century. The earliest Alexandrian witnesses? Second century. Ever since WH’s text and the RV were published, a vitriolic counter-attack has come from KJV circles. We are not here interested in the debate about the English translation per se; our concern is over the textual basis, the MSS behind the translation.

The attack has taken several forms, including denial of WH’s major points, vilification of these early MSS, or vilification of the scholars who embrace them. Our concern in this essay is only with the latter two points. (You may wish to consult my articles on the majority text for a discussion of the first point.) As for the vilification of the early MSS, John W. Burgon, then Dean of Chichester (southern England), argued that early scribes conspired against the faith. If they did so, they were singularly incompetent in their task, for they left too many things unchanged. (F. H. Scrivener, considered by many KJV fans to be the greatest textual critic of the nineteenth century [partially because he was sympathetic to much of what Burgon was saying] argued against this conspiracy theory.) In fact, they even changed some texts in a misguided attempt at making them more orthodox! Actually, all scribes did this. As is well known, the Synoptic Gospels have many parallels between them. Sometimes the wording is exactly the same between two or more; sometimes there are interesting differences. But all scribes at times changed the text of one gospel to conform it to another.

If the great uncials conspired against the faith, as Burgon supposed, then why would the scribes of each of these, independently of one another, try to harmonize the gospels? Take John 4:17 as an example. In this passage Jesus is speaking to the woman at the well. At one point he says to her, “Go, call your husband and come here.” To this she responds, “I don’t have a husband.” Jesus responds, “Correctly you have said, ‘A husband I don’t have.’“ In virtually all Greek MSS, Jesus changed the word order of the woman’s statement (putting “husband” first in the sentence, making it emphatic). This was intentional. It is as if he were saying, “Lady, you’ve got someone at home--but he’s not your husband!” But significantly, two early MSS change the wording. The scribes were apparently troubled by the fact that Jesus, though purportedly quoting the woman, did not quote her exactly. It seemed to be an affront to their view of either the Lord’s character or the accuracy of the Bible.

One of them changed Jesus’ words to an indirect quote: “Correctly you have said THAT a husband you do not have.” Another changed the woman’s words to conform to the word order of Jesus’ words! Apparently he couldn’t imagine the Lord quoting her other than exactly. Hence, the Lord quoted her OK, but she said it wrong in the first place! So her words were changed. These two MSS, Aleph and D, illustrate the piety of the scribes. Their corrections were misguided, to be sure. But they could hardly be charged with conspiratorial motives. Burgon’s view that these early MSS were up to no good is seen to be a prejudiced pronouncement--and one that virtually no NT scholar has since followed (even those who advocate the majority text theory). But what about the other conspiracy theory? New Age Conspiracy? More recently, KJV only advocates have argued that the scholars who produced the WH text and those who embrace it belong to a global conspiracy. They often charge that the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, salvation by grace, etc. is destroyed by these scholars. Some say that a New Age conspiracy is behind the modern translations. In response, just a few points should be made.

First, conspiracy theories are increasing among evangelicals nowadays, and this is a troubling sign. By their nature, conspiracy theories ask the reader to be completely skeptical toward one view while adopting the other, without an examination of the evidence. (One recent book that pushes a conspiracy theory actually has thousands of factual errors and misrepresentations in it, all of which go unchallenged by those sucked in by its aura.) I am reminded of the many popular books I have seen sold in Christian book stores that have a jacket blurb on the back cover: “The Devil doesn’t want you to read this!” More often than not, this line is used by an author who has nothing of substance to say and simply wants to get his book sold. Further, it is a haughty claim. The devil doesn’t want us to read the Bible; but to elevate any merely human production to Satan’s hit list of forbidden books is both disingenuous and pompous. Once the cry of conspiracy is raised, a cloud of suspicion is cast over one side of the issue. It never examines the flimsy basis of its own position, but throws acidic one-liners and ad hominem arguments at the opposition.

Often, in this particular issue, those who hold the opposing viewpoint are simply labeled as “servants of Satan,” and their translations are called “bastard bibles”! Mark Noll has recently written a masterful book entitled, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. In it he speaks about how American evangelicals have decided to chuck their brains for the sake of the party line, or for experience, or for emotionalism, etc. But the history of Christianity up through last century was of a different ilk. The Church felt that at least some of its number should be scholars--men and women who dedicated their minds to God, who cultivated the life of the mind. The fact that conspiracy theories about Bible translations are getting readily accepted in several circles indicts evangelicalism. To be blunt, this trend is symptomatic of the dumbing down of Christians in this country. Evangelicals are increasingly holding down the anti-intellectual fort, without engaging in serious debate with others. Second, if there really is such a conspiracy, then why do the majority of evangelical, Bible-believing seminaries and Bible colleges use modern translations and the Greek MSS behind them?

If the faithful wish to find fault with the beliefs of these schools, then they should attack head-on their beliefs, rather than that they use the wrong Bible. But the issue is always the same: wrong Bible must mean, by implication, wrong beliefs. But the beliefs are not examined. Third, let me camp on this doctrinal issue a bit. What doctrines are at stake? Is the deity of Christ? Surely not. Evangelicals embrace the deity of Christ, regardless of which Bible they use. And they find verses in their translation to back it up. Some studies in fact have shown how the deity of Christ is better supported in the NIV, NASB, etc. than in the KJV. How about the virgin birth? Again, no. Evangelicals embrace that. One of the best defenses of the virgin birth was written by the founder of Westminster Seminary, Gresham Machen, a man who did not think that the MSS behind the KJV were the best. How about inerrancy? The Trinity? Salvation by grace? Justification by faith? You name it, whatever the evangelical doctrine--it is not compromised by these new translations or the MSS behind them. This is the real issue.

What doctrines are changed if we change our Bibles? Westminster Seminary still follows the Westminster Confession; Trinity Evangelical Divinity School still embraces its strong doctrinal statement, as does Dallas Seminary its statement. Grace Seminary, Talbot, Western, Denver, Capitol, etc. Yet, the vast majority of the faculty at these schools use the modern translations and the ancient MSS that stand behind them. Where is the cause and effect relationship between new translations and heresy? Now, to be sure, conspiratorialists can find heretics who use these modern translations. That is beside the point, however. Why? Because an equal if not greater number of heretics can be found who embrace the KJV. (In the 1800s, in fact, the KJV became the ping-pong ball in English debates over the deity of Christ.

Those who argued for the deity of Christ appealed to the Greek text, since the KJV translators had not accurately translated some of the passages.) This is similar to what Peter says in 2 Peter 3:16: “Some things in [Paul’s] letters are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the rest of the Scriptures.” The real issue is whether thoroughly orthodox folks can be found standing behind these modern translations. Yes, they can, and predominantly so. The faith delivered once for all to the saints is not in danger from these new translations. The real danger is in deflecting Christians from our mission in life, to share the good news of Jesus Christ with a dying world, compassionately, and clearly. So, is there a conspiracy today? My answer may surprise the reader: yes, I believe there is. But the conspiracy has not produced these modern translations.

Rather, I believe that there is a conspiracy to cause division among believers, to deflect our focus from the gospel to petty issues, to elevate an anti-intellectual spirit that does not honor the mind which God has created, and to uphold as the only Holy Bible a translation that, as lucid as it was in its day, four hundred years later makes the gospel seem antiquated and difficult to understand. 2 It takes little thought to see who is behind such a conspiracy. 1 Erasmus’ text went through five editions. Others took up where he left off, but essentially kept the text virtually the same. One of the editions of Theodore Beza, done in the late 1500s, constituted the text behind the King James NT. By 1550 the third edition of Stephanus’ Greek text included in the margin textual variants from several witnesses, but the text was still largely that of Erasmus. By 1633 this text had gone through some more minor changes, but was stable enough that the edition published by the Elzevirs was called in the preface the “the text now received by all,” or the Textus Receptus.

Interestingly, this was more publishers’ hype than consensus, for many if not most NT scholars had long noted the inherent weaknesses in this text. The text published was thus, even in the seventeenth century, more a text of convenience than one of conviction. 2 One of the arguments sometimes heard is that the nonbeliever cannot understand the gospel. 1 Cor 2:12-14 is cited as proof of this statement. The KJV is thus held up as the best Bible because nonbelievers cannot easily understand it! This argument refutes itself, however. First, this is a perversion of 1 Cor 2:12-14; that text essentially says that the nonbeliever does not understand because he does not welcome the gospel. His problem is one of volition more than cognition. Second, if this argument were true, then we might expect a new believer suddenly able to comprehend Elizabethan English. But that is not the case: new believers have just as difficult a time understanding the KJV as nonbelievers. Third, why is it that unbelieving Shakespearean scholars have little difficulty understanding the words of the KJV? Fourth, by way of analogy: the NT was written in Koine Greek or “common” Greek.

It was the language of the day--easily understood fromAthens to Rome, from Carthage to Jerusalem. Should not our modern translations also be easily understood? To be sure, some of the concepts are not easily grasped, even for mature believers (Peter said as much about Paul’s writings). But why make the language a stumbling block? The cross alone should be the stumbling block. It is sufficient. Semi-colons, colons, and dashes - The Writing Center at UNC-Chapel Hill The Writing Center at UNC-Chapel Hill Home » Handouts » Semi-colons, colons, and dashes Semi-colons, colons, and dashes PDF What this handout is about This handout explains the most common uses of three kinds of punctuation: semi-colons (;), colons (:), and dashes (—). After reading the handout, you will be better able to decide when to use these forms of punctuation in your own writing. Semi-colons The semi-colon looks like a comma with a period above it, and this can be a good way to remember what it does. A semi-colon creates more separation between thoughts than a comma does but less than a period does.

Here are the two most common uses of the semi-colon: 1. To help separate items in a list, when some of those items already contain commas. Let’s look at an example, as that is the easiest way to understand this use of the semi-colon. Suppose I want to list three items that I bought at the grocery store: apples In a sentence, I would separate these items with commas: I bought apples, grapes, and pears. Now suppose that the three items I want to list are described in phrases that already contain some commas: shiny, ripe apples If I use commas to separate these items, my sentence looks like this: I bought shiny, ripe apples, small, sweet, juicy grapes, and firm pears. That middle part is a bit confusing—it doesn’t give the reader many visual cues about how many items are in the list, or about which words should be grouped together. Here is where the semi-colon can help. The commas between items can be “bumped up” a notch and turned into semi-colons, so that readers can easily tell how many items are in the list and which words go together: I bought shiny, ripe apples; small, sweet, juicy grapes; and firm pears.

2. To join two sentences. An independent clause is a group of words that can stand on its own (independently)—it is a complete sentence. Semi-colons can be used between two independent clauses. The semi-colon keeps the clauses somewhat separate, like a period would do, so we can easily tell which ideas belong to which clause. But it also suggests that there may be a close relationship between the two clauses—closer than you would expect if there were a period between them. Let’s look at a few examples. Here are a few fine independent clauses, standing on their own as complete sentences: I went to the grocery store today. I bought a ton of fruit. Apples, grapes, and pears were on sale. Now—where could semi-colons fit in here? They could be used to join two (but not all three) of the independent clauses together. So either of these pairs of sentences would be okay: I went to the grocery store today; I bought a ton of fruit. Apples, grapes, and pears were all on sale. OR I went to the grocery store today. I bought a ton of fruit; apples, grapes, and pears were all on sale.

I could NOT do this: I went to the grocery store today; I bought a ton of fruit; apples, grapes, and pears were all on sale. But why I would want to use a semi-colon here, anyway? One reason might have to do with style: the three short sentences sound kind of choppy or abrupt. A stronger reason might be if I wanted to emphasize a relationship between two of the sentences. If I connect “I bought a ton of fruit” and “Apples, grapes, and pears were all on sale” more closely, readers may realize that the reason why I bought so much fruit is that there was a great sale on it. Colons Colons follow independent clauses (clauses that could stand alone as sentences) and can be used to present an explanation, draw attention to something, or join ideas together. Common uses of colons 1. To announce, introduce, or direct attention to a list, a noun or noun phrase, a quotation, or an example/explanation. You can use a colon to draw attention to many things in your writing. The categories listed below often overlap, so don’t worry too much about whether your intended use of the colon fits one category perfectly.

Lists/series example: We covered many of the fundamentals in our writing class: grammar, punctuation, style, and voice. Noun/noun phrase example: My roommate gave me the things I needed most: companionship and quiet. Quotation example: Shakespeare said it best: “To thine own self be true.” Example/explanation example: Many graduate students discover that there is a dark side to academia: late nights, high stress, and a crippling addiction to caffeinated beverages. 2. To join sentences. You can use a colon to connect two sentences when the second sentence summarizes, sharpens, or explains the first. Both sentences should be complete, and their content should be very closely related. Note that if you use colons this way too often, it can break up the flow of your writing. So don’t get carried away with your colons! Example: Life is like a puzzle: half the fun is in trying to work it out. 3. To express time, in titles, and as part of other writing conventions. Colons appear in several standard or conventional places in writing. Here are a few examples: With numbers.

Colons are used to separate units of time (4:45:00 expresses four hours, forty-five minutes, and zero seconds); ratios (2:1), and Bible verses and chapters (Matthew 2:24). In bibliography entries. Many citation styles use a colon to separate information in bibliography entries. Example: Kurlansky, M. (2002). Salt: A world history. New York, NY: Walker and Co. With subtitles. Colons are used to separate titles from subtitles. Example: Everest: The Last Frontier After the salutation in a formal business letter. A colon can be used immediately after the greeting in a formal letter (less-formal letters tend to use a comma in this location). Example: To Whom it May Concern: Please accept my application for the position advertised in the News and Observer. Common colon mistakes 1. Using a colon between a verb and its object or complement Example (incorrect): The very best peaches are: those that are grown in the great state of Georgia. To correct this, simply remove the colon. 2.

Using a colon between a preposition and its object Example (incorrect): My favorite cake is made of: carrots, flour, butter, eggs, and cream cheese icing. To correct this, simply remove the colon. 3. Using a colon after “such as,” “including,” “especially,” and similar phrases. This violates the rule that the material preceding the colon must be a complete thought. Look, for example, at the following sentence: Example (incorrect): There are many different types of paper, including: college ruled, wide ruled, and plain copy paper. You can see that “There are many different types of paper, including” is not a complete sentence. The colon should simply be removed. How to check for mistakes Ask yourself a question: does the material preceding the colon stand on its own? One way to tell if the colon has been properly used is to look only at the words that come in front of the colon. Do they make a complete thought? If not, you may be using the colon improperly. Check above to see if you have made one of the most common mistakes. Should you capitalize the first letter after a colon?

Different citation styles (such as MLA, APA, Chicago, and AMA) have slightly different rules regarding whether to capitalize the first letter after a colon. If it is important that you follow one of these styles precisely, be sure to use the appropriate manual to look up the rule. Here’s our suggestion: generally, the first word following the colon should be lower-cased if the words after the colon form a dependent clause (that is, if they could not stand on their own as a complete sentence). If the following phrase is a complete (independent) clause, you may choose to capitalize it or not. Whichever approach you choose, be sure to be consistent throughout your paper. Example with an independent clause, showing two different approaches to capitalization: The commercials had one message: The geeks shall inherit the earth. (correct) The commercials had one message: the geeks shall inherit the earth. (correct) Example with a dependent clause (which is not capitalized) There are three things that I love more than anything else in the world: my family, my friends, and my computer. (correct) Dashes The first thing to know when talking about dashes is that they are almost never required by the laws of grammar and punctuation.

Overusing dashes can break up the flow of your writing, making it choppy or even difficult to follow, so don’t overdo it. It’s also important to distinguish between dashes and hyphens. Hyphens are shorter lines (-); they are most often used to show connections between words that are working as a unit (for example, you might see adjectives like “well-intentioned”) or to spell certain words (like “e-mail”). With that background information in mind, let’s take a look at some ways to put dashes to work in your writing. 1. To set off material for emphasis. Think of dashes as the opposite of parentheses. Where parentheses indicate that the reader should put less emphasis on the enclosed material, dashes indicate that the reader should pay more attention to the material between the dashes. Dashes add drama—parentheses whisper. Dashes can be used for emphasis in several ways: A single dash can emphasize material at the beginning or end of a sentence. Example: After eighty years of dreaming, the elderly man realized it was time to finally revisit the land of his youth—Ireland. Example: “The Office”—a harmless television program or a dangerously subversive guide to delinquency in the workplace?

Two dashes can emphasize material in the middle of a sentence. Some style and grammar guides even permit you to write a complete sentence within the dashes. Example: Everything I saw in my new neighborhood—from the graceful elm trees to the stately brick buildings—reminded me of my alma mater. Example (complete sentence): The students—they were each over the age of eighteen—lined up in the streets to vote for the presidential candidates. Two dashes can emphasize a modifier. Words or phrases that describe a noun can be set off with dashes if you wish to emphasize them. Example: The fairgrounds—cold and wet in the October rain—were deserted. Example: Nettie—her chin held high—walked out into the storm. 2. To indicate sentence introductions or conclusions. You can sometimes use a dash to help readers see that certain words are meant as an introduction or conclusion to your sentence. Example: Books, paper, pencils—many students lacked even the simplest tools for learning in nineteenth-century America. Example: To improve their health, Americans should critically examine the foods that they eat—fast food, fatty fried foods, junk food, and sugary snacks. 3.

To mark “bonus phrases.” Phrases that add information or clarify but are not necessary to the meaning of a sentence are ordinarily set off with commas. But when the phrase itself already contains one or more commas, dashes can help readers understand the sentence. Slightly confusing example with commas: Even the simplest tasks, washing, dressing, and going to work, were nearly impossible after I broke my leg. Better example with dashes: Even the simplest tasks—washing, dressing, and going to work—were nearly impossible after I broke my leg. 4. To break up dialogue. In written dialogue, if a speaker suddenly or abruptly stops speaking, hesitates in speech, or is cut off by another speaker, a dash can indicate the pause or interruption. Example: “I—I don’t know what you’re talking about,” denied the politician. Example: Mimi began to explain herself, saying, “I was thinking—” “I don’t care what you were thinking,” Rodolpho interrupted. We hope that this handout has helped you better understand colons, semi-colons, and dashes! For more information about punctuation, be sure to check out our handout on commas .

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License . You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout (just click print) and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Question: What is the second most common word in written English behind the?
Answer: Of